Article can be found here
This is something I found particularly interesting because I was wondering how Sarah Palin's daugther's pregnancy would affect voting patterns. Obviously, the main question is how evangelical's support would change. As this article shows, however, evangelicals claim to be supportive of the decision and they will not be derailed from the Republican ticket. It appears that these men and women are altering their opinions to justify this in their minds. In a religion that promotes sexual intercourse as restricted for procreation purposes for the married couple (I took a class on abortion last summer), this seems hypocritical. They are simply justifying this case in their minds, and altering past beliefs to conform to the present situation. Nobody said that Palin's daughter and the father of the baby are having plans to be married. And it is pretty obvious that they did not intend to have a baby at such young ages (so it was pleasure, not procreation).
In this case, the story/narrative they are telling are of a young couple, who happily decided to keep the baby in an unselfish manner. This is ignorant considering they are not addressing the emotional feelings and turmoil the teenagers are most likely experiencing at the moment. Secondly, they are framing it in a way that ignores the reality of premarital sex and justifies the situation by emphasizing the positive (i.e. "Thank God they decided to keep the baby").
Note: I can honestly state that these feelings are coming from the class I took this summer.
5 comments:
I completely agree that it is hypocritical. But couldn't you also say that rather than McCain's supporters changing their views to justify backing up Palin that maybe their views have always been that keeping a baby in any situation is a good idea? I get the feeling that many Republicans are pro-life, and this is the staple of their argument. Pro-lifers, from what I understand feel that a life is a life, and it should be cherished and treated and given all the rights to live as adults have. In other words, maybe the Evangelical community is updating their interpretations of what they read to meet the modern field of thought.
Yes you could say that. I had a crazy feminist pro-choice professor who I think gave us some biased material that made it seem that the pro-life campaign is anti-sex and anti-pleasure. That is why I put the disclaimer at the bottom. Haha. But thanks for the comment.
I feel that while the Evangelical community frowns apon premarital sex, that doesn't mean their kids do. I think Palin's family is a perfect example of this. The whole pro-life message is that abortion isn't the answer, that doesn't mean they don't think people are having sex. I can't say its hypocritical for her daughter to get pregnant because just because Palin doesn't agree with it doesn't mean she doesn't. The issue of abortion is not about having sex,it's about what you do with the consequences of sex.
I don't think it is hypocritical for Palin's daughter to get pregnant. Just because Palin is very conservative and doesn't support premarital sex doesn't mean her daughter does. I don't agree with everything my parents thing but that doesn't make them hypocrites. The pro-life stance doesn't mean that you don't believe in having sex, it's about what you do with the consequences. I do agree that it doesn't help Palin, but at least she takes the pro-life stance and stands by it when it hits home.
Now that I reread all of the comments, I realize that some of my thoughts could have been misconstrued. I do not believe everything that was said (i.e. the whole anti-sex campaign), just arguing based on the material I learned in a previous course and acknowledging the fact that the argument is out there. Sorry for the confusion.
Post a Comment